Experts decry backroom political deals

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Deals among the political parties reached outside the House of Representatives over the amendment of the 1945 Constitution will only undermine public participation in the process and devalue the meaning of democracy, experts have said.

They said the recent backroom deal between leaders of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and Golkar on direct presidential elections would encourage people to speculate about who had offered what.

Therefore, both the PDI Perjuangan and Golkar must explain the details of their deal to the public.

"To avoid backroom deals between party leaders, the details of their agreements must be made public," said Jimly Asshidiqqie of the University of Indonesia (UI) here on Sunday.

Fellow analyst Arbi Sanit claimed that political horse-trading outside the legislature would only lead to political conspiracies.

He suggested that the members of the political elite conduct their negotiations inside the House of Representatives and ensure that the public know exactly what results had been achieved.

Legislator Hamdan Zoelva of the Islamic-oriented Crescent and Star Party (PBB) concurred, saying that both PDI Perjuangan and Golkar must explain the results of their negotiations as part of their accountability to the people.

PDI Perjuangan and Golkar, the two biggest factions in the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) with 181 and 151 seats respectively, will play major roles in the Annual Session of the Assembly scheduled for August.

The two parties reached an agreement on direct presidential elections in which PDI Perjuangan moved away from its earlier position that the second round of a presidential election should be decided on by the MPR.

They agreed that the people would have the final say in the second round, which would be required if none of the presidential vice presidential candidates won a simple majority in the first round. Only the top two tickets would be eligible to participate in the run-off.

The article on direct presidential elections is one of the most contentious articles contained in the fourth amendment package. Another contentious article is the one on the composition of the MPR.

The agreement between Golkar and PDI Perjuangan has led to speculation that Golkar still owes PDI Perjuangan a favor for the latter's abstention in a recent vote against the establishment of a House special inquiry into a Rp 40 billion (US$4.4 million) scandal involving Golkar chairman Akbar Tandjung.

Some speculate that Golkar will likely support PDI Perjuangan's stance on the composition of the MPR. PDI Perjuangan has been fighting for the inclusion of interest groups in the MPR, which in practice would allow non-elected representatives of the military and the police to sit in the Assembly.

Both PDI Perjuangan and Golkar have denied that there were any concessions behind the agreement, claiming that it was designed to avoid deadlock at the MPR's Annual Session, which will decide on whether to adopt the fourth amendment package.

Meanwhile, lobbying of the Assembly's ad hoc constitutional amendment committee means there is an increasing likelihood that the presence of interest groups in the MPR will be accommodated.

Although no decision has been made, the changing of the alternatives in the draft document reveal a strong possibility that this will be the case.

The draft of the fourth amendment package issued in April by the ad hoc committee stipulates that the MPR shall consist of members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) elected at a general election, plus the interest group as further provided for by law.

But the draft issued on June 28 shows some modifications, and states that the members of the interest group shall be elected by the House as further provided for by law.

Hamdan, a member of the ad hoc committee, acknowledged that the issue of the interest group had been discussed but said that no decision had been made as yet.

Jimly said the presence of the interest group should be maintained to ensure that all elements of society were represented in the MPR.

He emphasized, however, that the role of the interest group should be downgraded to merely playing a role in the deliberation of constitutional amendments.